Ideas for HS2 and Post-HS2 WCML Timetables

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds a good plan to me. I assume all the post HS2 plans for WCML services is based on 125 mph and tilting Pendolino type of trains. Are Anglo Scottish sleepers to transfer permanently to ECML. I think there should also be consideration to run a 24 hour timetable from Milton Keynes into Euston, maybe 1TPH between 02.00 and 04.00 and a minimum half hourly either side of that.

I believe there actually was a 24 hour service at one point and it was cut through lack of use - 0134 is late enough for most people, and 03whateveritis from MKC southbound is early enough for most people too - though not for many years on a Saturday! Thameslink of course still has it, as does GWR to Reading.

It's sort of a 24 hour service as there's always one train that doesn't go to "bed" during the week - the set working the 0134 to MKC works the 03whateveritis southbound.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds a good plan to me. I assume all the post HS2 plans for WCML services is based on 125 mph and tilting Pendolino type of trains. Are Anglo Scottish sleepers to transfer permanently to ECML. I think there should also be consideration to run a 24 hour timetable from Milton Keynes into Euston, maybe 1TPH between 02.00 and 04.00 and a minimum half hourly either side of that.

I’d be surprised if the lowland sleeper survives Ph2 of HS2. Which would leave only the highland sleeper, and that will stay on the WCML because of length and the intermediate traffic.

 

[VT 390]

Is 2tph from Birmingham to Scotland really needed?
As with 1tph dividing and serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow this should be enough especially as the current WCML service should be maintained to keep direct links from places like Wolverhampton and Coventry to the north west.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is 2tph from Birmingham to Scotland really needed?
As with 1tph dividing and serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow this should be enough especially as the current WCML service should be maintained to keep direct links from places like Wolverhampton and Coventry to the north west.

Well there’s 2tph now, but half of them go via the East Coast.

 

[VT 390]

Well there’s 2tph now, but half of them go via the East Coast.

I meant just the HS2 services.
I think it should be 1tph HS2, 1tph West Coast and 1tph East Coast.
Although only the first 2 of these would be used to go all the way to Scotland as (currently at least) It is far cheaper and quicker to go the West Coast route.

 

[ABB125]

I have created this new thread here after moderator suggestion - the original post is number 1124 in this thread
Here is a radical new timetable suggestion for the WCML, seeing as those opposed to HS2 don't seem to have taken up the challenge. Please read the whole post before deciding it is impractical (which, to be fair, it probably is ).

Basically the service pattern to Birmingham and Manchester would consist of a half-hourly base pattern, supplemented by an additional hourly service to make up the 3tph there is currently.
For example, on the Manchester route:

• Departures from Euston at xx00 and xx30 (say), both via Stoke on Trent (which would then get a half-hourly service rather than the 20/40 interval that I believe it gets currently). Presumably this would provide increased capacity on the approach into Manchester because the service would be every half-hour, rather than the awkward 20/40 ish it is currently.
• An additional Manchester train would then run via Crewe at a convenient (as in, there's a path available) time, let's say this is at xx18. Hopefully this would be easier to path into Manchester due to the changes in the above point.

Similar for Birmingham:

• A half-hourly service (eg: xx09 and xx39), both of which terminate at New Street. As it is half-hourly, this should (?) make pathing on the Rugby - Birmingham corridor a bit easier.
• An additional service (to Scotland) when the paths exist (eg: xx57)

The other Virgin trains would run pretty much as they do currently, but probably retimed a bit.

Obviously, the exact times of the services would depend on stopping patterns and such like, but I'll leave that to the professionals who know how this works.

Also obvious is that this timetable would probably be commercial suicide for the operator, with everyone used to 20-minute intervals.

What does the forum think? Is this timetable workable? Better than the existing one? More operable?

 

[Ianno87]

Here is a radical new timetable suggestion for the WCML, seeing as those opposed to HS2 don't seem to have taken up the challenge. Please read the whole post before deciding it is impractical (which, to be fair, it probably is ).

Basically the service pattern to Birmingham and Manchester would consist of a half-hourly base pattern, supplemented by an additional hourly service to make up the 3tph there is currently.
For example, on the Manchester route:

• Departures from Euston at xx00 and xx30 (say), both via Stoke on Trent (which would then get a half-hourly service rather than the 20/40 interval that I believe it gets currently). Presumably this would provide increased capacity on the approach into Manchester because the service would be every half-hour, rather than the awkward 20/40 ish it is currently.
• An additional Manchester train would then run via Crewe at a convenient (as in, there's a path available) time, let's say this is at xx18. Hopefully this would be easier to path into Manchester due to the changes in the above point.

Similar for Birmingham:

• A half-hourly service (eg: xx09 and xx39), both of which terminate at New Street. As it is half-hourly, this should (?) make pathing on the Rugby - Birmingham corridor a bit easier.
• An additional service (to Scotland) when the paths exist (eg: xx57)

The other Virgin trains would run pretty much as they do currently, but probably retimed a bit.

Obviously, the exact times of the services would depend on stopping patterns and such like, but I'll leave that to the professionals who know how this works.

Also obvious is that this timetable would probably be commercial suicide for the operator, with everyone used to 20-minute intervals.

What does the forum think? Is this timetable workable? Better than the existing one? More operable?

One immediate thing is that the platforming at Manchester Piccadilly is much less efficient. The current 20 minute interval service lays over for about 30 minutes, meaning 3tph takes two platforms.

2tph on 30 minute intervals would likely itself need two platforms (you'd have to have some luck on your side to have them on 25 minute turnround times to fit on one platform), then the third hourly train would need a third platform.

This would probably make stock workings less efficient, so the Pendolino fleet won't stretch as far (one of the other 20 minute interval benefits is the very efficient use of stock this enables)

 

[ABB125]

One immediate thing is that the platforming at Manchester Piccadilly is much less efficient. The current 20 minute interval service lays over for about 30 minutes, meaning 3tph takes two platforms.

2tph on 30 minute intervals would likely itself need two platforms (you'd have to have some luck on your side to have them on 25 minute turnround times to fit on one platform), then the third hourly train would need a third platform.

This would probably make stock workings less efficient, so the Pendolino fleet won't stretch as far (one of the other 20 minute interval benefits is the very efficient use of stock this enables)

Right, so maybe the current timetable is about as good as it can be, and no amount of rejigging or "smart" timetabling will work...

Although it is interesting to hear feedback on my idea.

 

[AndrewE]

I don't understand why your base is a half-hourly timetable for Brum and Manchester, then adds in a train via Crewe "when it is convenient." Are the current 3 trains-an-hour with clock-face departures from Euston to Manchester under-used? Ditto the fast Eus - Brum trains? Is the one which continues north so inconvenient that it is to be reduced to a "when convenient" train?
Would you protect the regular hourly timetable on the WCML north of Stafford?
Apart from the poor service north from Crewe station (Warrington has twice as many services) the current timetable seems to work quite well...

 

[ABB125]

I don't understand why your base is a half-hourly timetable for Brum and Manchester, then adds in a train via Crewe "when it is convenient." Are the current 3 trains-an-hour with clock-face departures from Euston to Manchester under-used? Ditto the fast Eus - Brum trains? Is the one which continues north so inconvenient that it is to be reduced to a "when convenient" train?
Would you protect the regular hourly timetable on the WCML north of Stafford?
Apart from the poor service north from Crewe station (Warrington has twice as many services) the current timetable seems to work quite well...

It's on the basis that half-hourly patterns are easier to path other services around than every 20 minutes.
I'm not suggesting that this should necessarily happen, rather answer the challenge set upthread about suggesting a new timetable. Personally I don't think it would work, both from a passenger convenience point of view and stock allocation.

 

[mmh]

One immediate thing is that the platforming at Manchester Piccadilly is much less efficient. The current 20 minute interval service lays over for about 30 minutes, meaning 3tph takes two platforms.

2tph on 30 minute intervals would likely itself need two platforms (you'd have to have some luck on your side to have them on 25 minute turnround times to fit on one platform), then the third hourly train would need a third platform.

This would probably make stock workings less efficient, so the Pendolino fleet won't stretch as far (one of the other 20 minute interval benefits is the very efficient use of stock this enables)

Genuine question (i.e. I have no idea, so I'm not saying you're wrong!), why are shorter turnaround times a problem? There are places (e.g. Weston-super-Mare) where it seems intercity trains can have much shorter turnaround times than those usual at the big terminals.

I guess it's probably very useful for service reliability, and if the terminal has capacity for it, why not, but are there other reasons?

 

[Ianno87]

Genuine question (i.e. I have no idea, so I'm not saying you're wrong!), why are shorter turnaround times a problem? There are places (e.g. Weston-super-Mare) where it seems intercity trains can have much shorter turnaround times than those usual at the big terminals.

I guess it's probably very useful for service reliability, and if the terminal has capacity for it, why not, but are there other reasons?

The absolute minimum planned turnround time is usually dictated by the union train crew agreement, but obviously in general the more turnround times are reduced, the less reliability you have.

The "beauty" of the current Piccadilly 30 minute turnround times is that they cover a number of eventualities, e.g.

-Cab absorb the ~20 minute time penalty for a diversion via Northampton, which are relatively commonplace, with 10 minutes to spare and
-Permits the trains to be 'stepped up' to 10 minute turnround times should VT be down a set for whatever reason - about the only 'county' termini where this is possible.

It's likely that Weston-super-Mares turnround times can be relatively short because, in extremis, a late running train is simply turned back at Bristol TM. No such credible equivalent exists for Manchester Piccadilly (remembering the need to get there to allow crews to change over, etc)

 

[6Gman]

I have created this new thread here after moderator suggestion - the original post is number 1124 in this thread
Here is a radical new timetable suggestion for the WCML, seeing as those opposed to HS2 don't seem to have taken up the challenge. Please read the whole post before deciding it is impractical (which, to be fair, it probably is ).

Basically the service pattern to Birmingham and Manchester would consist of a half-hourly base pattern, supplemented by an additional hourly service to make up the 3tph there is currently.
For example, on the Manchester route:

• Departures from Euston at xx00 and xx30 (say), both via Stoke on Trent (which would then get a half-hourly service rather than the 20/40 interval that I believe it gets currently). Presumably this would provide increased capacity on the approach into Manchester because the service would be every half-hour, rather than the awkward 20/40 ish it is currently.
• An additional Manchester train would then run via Crewe at a convenient (as in, there's a path available) time, let's say this is at xx18. Hopefully this would be easier to path into Manchester due to the changes in the above point.

Credit for trying, but how does switching from 3 tph to 3 tph "provide increased capacity"?

And if you're going to have 3 tph doesn't it make sense to have them at 20" intervals?

 

[ABB125]

Credit for trying, but how does switching from 3 tph to 3 tph "provide increased capacity"?

And if you're going to have 3 tph doesn't it make sense to have them at 20" intervals?

Yes, 20 minutes intervals are better from a passenger (and operational) perspective, but I believe 30 minute intervals are easier to timetable other (stopping) trains around, so it may not directly increase capacity on the WCML, but it may do on the approaches to Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, 20 minutes intervals are better from a passenger (and operational) perspective, but I believe 30 minute intervals are easier to timetable other (stopping) trains around, so it may not directly increase capacity on the WCML, but it may do on the approaches to Birmingham and Manchester.

On the contrary; the 20 minute interval pattern to Manchester, with 2tph via Stoke and 1tph via Crewe, gives a 20/40 pattern via Stoke and thus a bigger 40 minute gap for the hourly stopper to go in.

 

[ABB125]

On the contrary; the 20 minute interval pattern to Manchester, with 2tph via Stoke and 1tph via Crewe, gives a 20/40 pattern via Stoke and thus a bigger 40 minute gap for the hourly stopper to go in.

Well that's why those who plan the timetables are the timetable planners, rather than someone on a forum who "just knows" that "smart timetabling" is the way forward...
Although, in all seriousness, would a 30 minute interval be better into Birmingham, because I'm pretty sure that's what the indicative post-HS2 proposed timetable is based upon (in the West Midlands Route Study)?

 

[Ianno87]

Well that's why those who plan the timetables are the timetable planners, rather than someone on a forum who "just knows" that "smart timetabling" is the way forward...
Although, in all seriousness, would a 30 minute interval be better into Birmingham, because I'm pretty sure that's what the indicative post-HS2 proposed timetable is based upon (in the West Midlands Route Study)?

You could probably move the locals to doing something like 2tph calling most stops, 2tph calling key ones only, or something like that (or alternatively 2tph stopping to International, 2tph fast to Marston Green then all stops to Cov), rather than the current skip-stop pattern that isn't exactly intuitive to passengers.

The big benefit on the Coventry corridor would probably be the opportunity to reroute the via Solihull XC service via Coventry.

 

[ABB125]

You could probably move the locals to doing something like 2tph calling most stops, 2tph calling key ones only, or something like that (or alternatively 2tph stopping to International, 2tph fast to Marston Green then all stops to Cov), rather than the current skip-stop pattern that isn't exactly intuitive to passengers.

The big benefit on the Coventry corridor would probably be the opportunity to reroute the via Solihull XC service via Coventry.

All of which can happen when HS2 is built.
Thanks for your feedback.

 

[Bevan Price]

If /when HS2 ever reaches Manchester, it will probably get 3 tph to/from London. Therefore, another 3 tph entirely on WCML & related routes will be too much. 2 tph, both via Stoke would be more than adequate. Apart from Stockport & Macclesfield, each WCML service would have 2 intermediate stops between London & Stoke (e.g. Watford Jn + Rugby, or Milton Keynes + Nuneaton, or some similar permutation).

Also, I would suggest that both your London - Birmingham services should continue to Wolverhampton; these should also have at least one stop south of Coventry. One would, as now, continue to Scotland; if that route is ever electrified, some of the Wolverhampton services should continue to Shrewsbury.

 

[The Planner]

Well that's why those who plan the timetables are the timetable planners, rather than someone on a forum who "just knows" that "smart timetabling" is the way forward...
Although, in all seriousness, would a 30 minute interval be better into Birmingham, because I'm pretty sure that's what the indicative post-HS2 proposed timetable is based upon (in the West Midlands Route Study)?

Yes, for the reasons Ian said.

 

[VT 390]

If /when HS2 ever reaches Manchester, it will probably get 3 tph to/from London. Therefore, another 3 tph entirely on WCML & related routes will be too much. 2 tph, both via Stoke would be more than adequate. Apart from Stockport & Macclesfield, each WCML service would have 2 intermediate stops between London & Stoke (e.g. Watford Jn + Rugby, or Milton Keynes + Nuneaton, or some similar permutation).

Also, I would suggest that both your London - Birmingham services should continue to Wolverhampton; these should also have at least one stop south of Coventry. One would, as now, continue to Scotland; if that route is ever electrified, some of the Wolverhampton services should continue to Shrewsbury.

Would 2tph on the current WCML route to Manchester be to much as Stoke-on-Trent will have 1 HS2 train an hour which would probably overtake the second WCML service. For Manchester (in addition to 3 HS2 tph) have 1tph via Stoke and Macclesfield and 1tph via Crewe and Wilmslow so that Wilmslow maintains its through London service and Stoke and Macclesfield would still have 2tph (1 HS2 and 1 WCML).

 

[agbrs_Jack]

Would 2tph on the current WCML route to Manchester be to much as Stoke-on-Trent will have 1 HS2 train an hour which would probably overtake the second WCML service. For Manchester (in addition to 3 HS2 tph) have 1tph via Stoke and Macclesfield and 1tph via Crewe and Wilmslow so that Wilmslow maintains its through London service and Stoke and Macclesfield would still have 2tph (1 HS2 and 1 WCML).

Post HS2 I would expect that us lovely people of Congleton deserve a long overdue, decent service, (2tph?).
Releasing the capacity should make this possible.

 

[VT 390]

Post HS2 I would expect that us lovely people of Congleton deserve a long overdue, decent service, (2tph?).
Releasing the capacity should make this possible.

I would say that Congleton should be served additionally by an hourly XC call, one of which at least will most likely remain after HS2. Alternatively a second Northern service calling only at Stoke, Kidsgrove, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly and then to somewhere like Preston or Blackpool to give Stoke a service north of Manchester.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

I would say that Congleton should be served additionally by an hourly XC call, one of which at least will most likely remain after HS2. Alternatively a second Northern service calling only at Stoke, Kidsgrove, Congleton, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly and then to somewhere like Preston or Blackpool to give Stoke a service north of Manchester.

No Macclesfield for the Northern one?
Sounds good to me, can't come quick enough!

 

[VT 390]

No Macclesfield for the Northern one?
Sounds good to me, can't come quick enough!

I completely forgot about Macclesfield, but yes it would stop at Macclesfield as well as this is one of the most used stations on that route, although a few peak trains could possibly miss Macclesfield out to provide more capacity for local passengers but I am not sure how busy these services get.

 

[agbrs_Jack]

I completely forgot about Macclesfield, but yes it would stop at Macclesfield as well as this is one of the most used stations on that route, although a few peak trains could possibly miss Macclesfield out to provide more capacity for local passengers but I am not sure how busy these services get.

The current issue is a morning peak gap with no Manchester bound service between the 0712 and 0812. Both those trains are very busy (0712 probably more so - I commute to Birmingham so haven't used them for a while but have seen the platform in the morning)

Evening wise Northern removed the 17:18 off Piccadilly last May so it's 16:44 or 17:44.
Both of these are packed normally.

Luckily the 1721 MAN-MAC is to be extended to Stoke from May 19.

There is quite a bit of CNG-MAC (and reverse) traffic so would definitely make sense for any future services to call at both (the occasional one missing it shouldn't be an issue, however).